Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Letters

[Write a Reply] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
No Supernatural Causes Gaudia, Gil Sep 28, 2005
Eric Murphy makes a good point in pointing out that God, ghosts and any "supernatural" phenomena can not exist in a natural world, i.e., that they are examples of as yet not explained phenomena. I would add one other point--that "supernatural" phenomena would not contain mass or energy (otherwise they would be natural phenomena)and so they could not interact with natural phenomena. How could God cause a mechanical system like a living body to change unless God was made of and employed mass or energy to bring about the change? What would the interface between the "supernatural" and the natural consist of?
Related Articles: No supernatural causes

Title Author Date
No Supernatural Causes Thinker, Free Oct 06, 2005
Eric Murphy, "No supernatural causes":

I'm going to argue that there's no such thing as a "supernatural" phenomenon. If a phenomenon exists (i.e., it's not imaginary or fictional), then by definition it is a natural phenomenon. (end quote)

There's a phrase describing that kind of thing: "Heads I win, tails you lose". It's the rigging of the rules of the game such that you can never lose. It's totally antithetical to (drum roll, please) freethought.

"Bringing every thought captive to...", but this time from the naturalist side. Welcome to the club.
Related Articles: No supernatural causes

Title Author Date
No Supernatural Causes Tremblay, Francois Oct 16, 2005
"There's a phrase describing that kind of thing: "Heads I win, tails you lose". It's the rigging of the rules of the game such that you can never lose. It's totally antithetical to (drum roll, please) freethought."

You seem to be equating freethought with "being nice to all sides of an issue". This is not rational. Freethought means to be open to all possibilities, but freethought must yield to reason when evidence is accumulated.

To ignore the massive epistemic and scientific evidence for materialism, is not freethought... but willful ignorance.
Related Articles: No supernatural causes